University banking on name change

Victoria University is banking on its possible name change bringing in handsome revenue increases but a branding expert says putting a dollar figure on it can be a ‘‘tricky business’’.

A discussion paper on the institution’s proposal to drop ‘‘Victoria’’ from its name to become the University of Wellington was released last week, triggering two weeks of consultation.

The university claims the change could bring a ‘‘potential upside measured in the tens of millions of dollars’’.

Vice-chancellor Professor Grant Guilford hoped to attract an extra 850 international students each year, a direct result of increasing ‘‘international prestige’’ and eliminating brand confusion.

If foreign student numbers rose to similar levels seen at Australian universities, that could generate ‘‘up to $12.5 million to $59m per annum’’, the document read.

Massey University branding expert and Victoria alumni Professor Malcolm Wright believed there would be financial benefit from the abbreviated name – but its exact value was unclear.

‘‘There’s an enormous amount of error associated with those measurements, so you wouldn’t really want to be held to them too closely.

‘‘It’s a tricky business, because there’s a lot of intangible brand benefits that are very hard to quantify . . . saying how much it’s worth is a controversial area.

‘‘It’s a bit of a guess, even with the best methods,’’ Wright said.

One of the most high-profile rebranding exercises in recent times was Telecom’s switch to Spark in 2014. At the time, many questioned whether the $20m rebrand would resonate with older customers but Wright said it had been a positive change for the telecommunications outfit.

‘‘I think it’s increasingly understood the values of brands. You can look at, for example, manufacturing in China and know the great struggle they have is great quality brands. ‘‘The biggest companies globally, by sharemarket valuation, have very strong brands – Apple, Amazon, Microsoft.

‘‘I think a small amount of money spent in fixing up the brand . . . people will accept that it’s very worthwhile,’’ Wright explained.

If approved and revenue targets were met, the university estimated the name change would cost it $962,151 over two years.

So far, $236,151 of the budget has already been spent on legal costs, review work and market research.

Just how much bang the university will get for its buck is now being publicly scrutinised.

An online petition, called ‘‘Don’t get rid of Vic’’, had attracted more than 3600 signatures on Thursday.

Petition organiser Gwynn Compton has been critical of the proposal, saying Victoria’s reputation and recognition ‘‘can’t be enhanced purely by flashy marketing’’.

‘‘Universities are driven by the quality of the research they do and the teaching they deliver, rather than any sort of brand or marketing things,’’ Compton said.

The Victoria University graduate wasn’t convinced by the findings of the Colmar Brunton research which underpinned much of the university’s rationale for change.

‘‘The supposed benefits from a name change, in terms of international students recognising it, it sort of sat within the margins of errors in the surveys,’’ he said.

Compton believed the consultation timeframe was too short and didn’t give overseas alumni the best opportunity to give feedback.

Once consultation closes on August 13, the university’s council will decide whether to back the decision before giving Education Minister Chris Hipkins final signoff.

‘‘The biggest companies globally have very strong brands.’’ Victoria alumni Professor Malcolm Wright